Michigan The Key To 2016;Governor Palin To Be Proven Prophetically Right?

Also at Palin4President2016

Abandoning Michigan in the heat of the election was seen by  major observers as presidential candidate John McCain effectively throwing in the towel.It also marked a very severe break with the strategists of McCain team ("McCain's tactically understandable but strategically stupid decision to visibly abandon Michigan was made without Palin.") by his running mate Governor Sarah Palin who, very publicly, decried the move.

"Sarah Palin questioned Republican presidential candidate John McCain's decision to abandon efforts to win Michigan, a campaign move she said she learned about Friday morning when she read it in the newspapers.

In an interview with Fox News, the Alaska governor said she was disappointed that the McCain campaign decided to stop competing in Michigan. In an indication that the vice presidential candidate had not been part of the decision, she said she had “read that this morning, and I fired off a quick e-mail” questioning the move.

“Todd and I, we'd be happy to get to Michigan and walk through those plants of the car manufacturers,” Palin said. “We'd be so happy to get to speak to the people in Michigan who are hurting because the economy is hurting.”

Chuck Yob, the Republican National Committee Member from Michigan for nearly twenty years in an heartfelt plea also decried the abandonment of Michigan which he expressed in an open letter to Palin;

"Governor Palin,I saw your comments on Fox News today and described in the Detroit Free Press article below.  I wholeheartedly agree with you that the decision by the McCain campaign to pull out of Michigan was the wrong decision."

Palin continued to show her support for Michigan by, very symbolically, kicking the tour off in Grand Rapids for the massive "Going Rogue (with its echoes of Michigan in the title) book tour launch and in her major support ("Sarah Palin says Republicans should have stayed in Michigan") of the Republican candidates there in the 2010 mid-terms "My heart goes out to you. The rest of us will not abandon Michigan."

So who was right, the McCain team or Governor Palin if the Electoral College future of the GOP is taken into consideration? The subsequent electoral history and immediate prospects give an indication.

The now Governor Snyder won election in 2010 in a landslide, succeeding a Democrat in a state that has gone solidly for the Dem's, the last six presidential elections in a row,  with 58 percent of the vote. With Snyder's election in 2010, Republicans gained a majority in the Michigan House and increased the Republican majority held in the Michigan Senate. 

In a result so unprecedented in its nature that the effects may be profound, the city of Detroit elected its first White mayor in four decades. If Mayor Duggan helps turn around the terrible problems the city faces the comment from one Black voter "It's all about who can do the job. It's not about color" may have statewide, and possibly nationwide, ramifications.

The 2014 mid-terms will be the next test of the possible changing fortunes for the GOP in Michigan; It is significant that Americans for Prosperity see it that way and are providing substantial resources to the campaign.

"The Michigan Senate race was supposed to be an easy win for Democratic Rep. Gary Peters, but former Republican Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land has taken a commanding lead in the latest poll released Monday over her Democratic counterpart." That report was from the conservative leaning Harper Poll which gave Land an eight point lead. On the other hand PPP Polling, the well known Dem leaning outfit, in typical PPP speak, has Land ahead by two (and Snyder also ahead in his bid for re-election) "The somewhat popular Terri Lynn Land edges Gary Peters for Senate, 42-40, and still fairly unpopular Gov. Rick Snyder tops Mark Schauer, 44-40."  If we do an average as per the much vaunted 538.com methodology it gives Land a five point lead.

If Goveror Palin was right strategically in 2008, and in her remarks in 2010, and there is a marked swing to the Republicans in Michigan what significant effect might that have on the 2016 presidential elections? If there is a continued swing and the previously monolithic Black support for the Democrats eases then the result could be very significant indeed.

If it is assumed that the GOP wins Florida (if Florida is lost then there is no possibility of a Republican win) and Ohio, then even with the loss of Virginia, which even the most sanguine Republic has to view as marginal given the demographic changes in the state, if Michigan can be won the path to Electoral College victory, albeit by the slimmest of margins, is possible-an intriguing prospect. 

Even with the loss of Virginia/Colorado/Iowa/New Mexico/Nevada there would be a tie in the Electoral College. At that point the GOP, with the majority of state delegations in the House of Representatives would have their candidate chosen as per the constitution. A win in any of the four states from Iowa to Nevada assigned to the Dem's in the map below would of course provide a clear win as would Virginia.

It might also be considered that given her long standing commitment to Michigan both in the 2008 campaign and subsequently Governor Palin might be the ideal candidate to have the state move to the GOP-perhaps with Governor Snyder as part of the team. The 2014 mid-terms in Michigan will possibly be highly significant not only for possibly providing the GOP with their majority in the senate but also their subsequent majority in the Electoral College in 2016 more than compensating for possible loss of Virginia.

Video: My Role As Ethnic Communities Ambassador For International Aid Organization

I gave this interview some years ago when I was Ethic Communities Ambassador for the New Zealand chapter of the American head officed international aid organization World Vision. I discussed advocacy and child sponsorship as a mechanism for changing lives.

The concepts and values, and needs are still highly relevant although the mechanism may have changed over time.

Per Christie;Those Whom The Gods Wish To Destroy They Give Landslide Electoral Victories To

To me there felt an eerie silence, politically metaphorically speaking of course, after Governor Christie's landslide re-election win. No doubt this "silence" was caused in large part by all the polls and the media expecting such a landslide but still it was remarkably quiet and had the feel of strange foreboding one can get when the air is ionization charged after a lightening storm.

Maybe that is just my impression but if it is, history, and a long involvement in politics, will prove that it was a right interpretation of the omens. It is in fact an easy interpretation to come to, as in my lifetime alone I have seen elected officials win massive landslides, often including control of both legislatures only to see their careers crash, or like Nixon, actually get totally destroyed from a seemingly impregnable position.

There has been no bigger presidential landslide than President Reagan's second term 49 state blitzing of Walter Mondale. And although "The Gipper" remains enshrined in blessed conservative memory, his second term was beset my huge problems, the 1987 stock market crash and, of course, the arms for hostages Iran
crisis which gave Reagan's credibility and legacy a tremendous hit.

Nixon's landslide second term win against the hapless Democrat George McGovern seemingly saw Nixon and the GOP riding a wave of massive electoral approval, yet all that remains of Nixon's second term is the image of him leaving the White House by helicopter heading off into ignominy and exile.

LBJ's landslide win over Goldwater saw him destroy the fabric of American society by his unceasing commitment to the mad Vietnam war. As is so often the case Johnson not only gave up any idea of running for re-election but could not appear at his own party's convention which descended into chaos over his failed policies.

FDR was re-elected in 1936 with a massive landslide win of 46 out of the then 48 states and then his ensuing hubris, which is of course the end result of landslides wins, saw him try and pack the supreme court in 1937 which effort was rebuffed with damage to his reputation.

History also shows that  it is on the cards that the GOP can win the presidency in 2016. If the economy has still not recovered then the possible win could be a landslide. That would bring much satisfaction and the  warm glow would last well past inauguration day but it may well be a case of beware what you wish for as you may well receive it.

Hubris gives the Gods more laughter than anything else we puny humans do and a squeaker win in the Electoral College in 2016 might not only keep the incoming administration on its toes but also out of the baleful glance of the jealous electoral dieties. 

"Christie Or Jeb's Name Recognition Guarantees Either The 2016 Nomination" Palin The Only Conservative Possibility

I reproduce below an overview on the 2016 Republican party nomination battle from an anonymous commentator "busybee at "Conservatives4Palin" whose views are their own.There are obvious valid points made regarding name recognition and eventual nomination as Republican candidate. 

On the other hand it may fairly be stated that Romney achieved the nomination through a combination of a divided conservative right e.g. Gingrich and Santorum splitting the vote. Further Romney's massive spend/attack on Gingrich in Florida, after Gingrich's big win in South Carolina was probably the deciding factor not name recognition per se.

However, if the article is accepted as valid in the most part then it would appear that only one person has higher name recognition than Christie/Bush and that is of course Governor Palin. What it further shows is that for Governor Palin to beat the Establishment/high name recognition candidates, four factors have to be in place;

1. Palin would have to declare very early, perhaps shortly after the 2014 mid-terms to build up a massive on the ground team. An early declaration, and rise in the opinion polls, could discourage other conservatives from splitting the vote which would potentially be disastrous. This poll, one of the only ones to include Palin says it all; Palin/Cruz 18% Christie 18% Jeb 10%

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/12/10/211208/hillary-clinton-dominates-early.html

2. Palin would have to build a massive "war chest' from the millions of dedicated followers and have them contribute regularly to ensure the substantial finds required for media spends/organizational set-up.

3. Palin would have create a team of seasoned and loyal professionals. An amateur ground-game would not be sufficient when having to take on both the media and the GOP establishment.

4. Palin would have to, as soon as possible, nominate a running mate who could counter both the Establishment candidate/s and show that her team could take on the probable Democrat Clinton. I suggest that Susana Martinez should be that person. LINK
******************************************************************

• • 
    
    

     
• 
  
• busybee01 

  
  

  • 2

  • −

  
  

  The fact is that the establishment holds all the aces in 2016. The establishment has 2 candidates who are capable of running national campaigns, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush. Republicans have no one that can do that.

  Why is having a candidate who can run a national campaign is borne out through history. The fact is that the people who have the name recognition to run a national campaign usually gets the nomination.

  Highest name recognition nominee
  1976 Reagan, Ford Ford
  1980 Reagan Reagan
  1988 Bush Bush
  1996 Dole Dole
  2000 George W Bush George W Bush
  2008 McCain McCain
  2012 Romney Romney

  Another reason for this is simple. take a look at the likely primary schedule in 2016.
  Jan 16 Iowa
  Jan 26 New Hampshire
  Feb 6 Nevada
  Frb 13 South Carolina
  Feb 23 Arizona, Michigan
  Mar 1 American Samoa Territorial Caucus, Colorado Precinct Caucus, Georgia, Massachusetts
  Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Vermont

  Essentially what you are doing is running for statewide office in each of these states. In Iowa, Ted Cruz gets a 45% don't know, Marco Rubio has 45% don't know, Rand Paul has a high 31% don't know, on the other hand Chris Christie has a 15% don't know. This means that even in Iowa, people know who Christie is while to varying degrees it is Ted who?, Rand who?, and Marco who? That means that Cruz and Rand Paul will have to stick exclusively to Iowa while Christie can go to Iow, NH, Arizona, and Michigan if he wanted. Cruz and Paul would have 10 days in NH, 10 in Nevada, 7 in South Carolina, and a maximum of 10 days to be divided between 2 states. Then a week later the schedule expands geometrically. What would be the odds of winning these states? Probably lower than ND's temperatures during the polar vertex.

  In addition, there are a number of things that have to be done between September and December of 2015. Such as filling delegate slates in Illinois, and gathering signatures in Virginia to get on the ballot to name a couple.
  This has to be done despite the lack of name recognition. In 2012, only Ron Paul and Mitt Romney got on the Virginia ballot. Bachmann, Perry, and Santorum failed. Only Romney got a full slate of delegates in Illinois. Another advantage for Jeb and Christie.

  The odds are that the Republican nominee will be Chris Christie or Jeb Bush. Palin will be on Fox saying only that they are better than Hillary. That's like asking which you would prefer,
  arsenic or cyanide? Both are fatal yet with one you have a little bit more time.
• 
  

Governor Susana Martinez On The 2016 Ticket;GOP's Best/Only Chance of Winning?

The Republican ticket for 2016 and its best and perhaps only chance of victory?














Political analysts looking far ahead to the 2016 presidential elections have advised that the GOP have a hard row to hoe given the substantial Democrat advantage in the high population states.That  is of course correct and the GOP candidate would have to thread a fine needle to win in the Electoral College.

Making the challenge even more difficult is Virginia, once a solid south state having gone for the Democrats for the last two elections.Whether this is due to the high Black turnout for Obama, or the drift  of Democrat voters into Northern Virginia is open to debate, but what seems certain is that the state is marginal and perhaps leans Dem. The recent gubernatorial election proved nothing as both candidates were weak, and it came in the immediate aftermath of the government shut down which appeared to affect the Republican candidate.

Obviously if the GOP won Virginia it would be a crucial element in forging an Electoral College victory of 270 votes, but it is not absolutely essential. The reality is that if the Republicans lose Florida then it is game over almost before it starts. Even winning Virginia and Ohio (and the "Romney" states from 2012) still doesn't get the GOP to 270, either Iowa or Colorado has to come on board for a squeaker win.

But if Virginia goes Dem, then even with Iowa and Colorado won the GOP would be 2 votes short (or 1 if there were a tie). So, is there any hope for a Republican of any stripe in 2016 without a win, a tough challenge, in Virginia? In my opinion there would be one chance and that would be to have the current Governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez as the Vice-presidential candidate. The map below shows
how a win in New Mexico (which went for Bush on 2004) could win the presidency for the Republican ticket.

Martinez is popular in her home state, is Hispanic, which might be crucial not only in New Mexico, but in Florida as well, and is seen by the base as an acceptable conservative. Being a woman, especially as part of an all woman team ( a possibility Governor Palin appears to welcome as per the interview below) e.g. Palin/Martinez might help counter the Hillary bandwagon if she were the Dem. nominee.

Frankly, unless there is a major swing against the Dem's in 2016, or an economic downturn, it may well be that the GOP's only chance would be to have Martinez on the ticket with her spending most of the campaign in New Mexico/Florida/Colorado and Nevada (a win in Nevada would allow for a loss in Iowa)-all states won by Bush in 2004 and all absolutely crucial to 2016

SB - (Reading Twitter question) "will you run in 2016 if Romney doesn't win or in 2020 and would you consider Condi Rice as an all female ticket as your VP?

SP- "wouldn't that be cool an all female ticket.

Note that Palin didn't deny the possibility of either a presidential run or her having a female VP if a run took place. Using that as the baseline, i.e. a possible future run and female ticket running mate, who might be the best candidate as far as bringing the most optimum Electoral College advantages?

There are in fact a wealth of such possible top class people, Haley/Rice/Ayotte have all been mentioned at one time or another and all have advantages and possible disadvantages. However one possible VP candidate,Governor Susana Martinez has an enormous store of advantages and could be the key to victory.


**********************************************************************

Here is the original interview and discussion regarding a  possible future run and female VP running mate

SB - (Reading Twitter question) "will you run in 2016 if Romney doesn't win or in 2020 and would you consider Condi Rice as an all female ticket as your VP?

SP- "wouldn't that be cool an all female ticket....maybe that's part of the answer America needs. Um, I am obviously still thinking about running in the future for an office that would allow the effective policies that America needs. We (I) have a good track record having served in the past at local, state level of government, really engaging in the relentless reform, that is needed (indistinct - clean??) and reign in the growth of government. I think I could put some of that experience to good use on a national level so obviously still thinking about it but, um, we'll see what the future holds.